Never heard a better osc/filt than Asynth, Why no more dev?
-
LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=47871
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1850 posts since 13 Nov, 2004
yah, whatever happened to foorius? Wrong place to ask this..
The following statement is true.
The previous statement is false.
The previous statement is false.
-
- KVRer
- 27 posts since 15 Feb, 2004 from Canada
I keep coming back to mess around with Asynth. It's really a nice enough little synth already, but the darned pitch bend range is only a whole tone up or down. For that reason alone, I put Asynth into my "B" list folder of plug-ins. A shame really.
Piktor
Piktor
-
- KVRist
- 68 posts since 20 Nov, 2003
Someone wants Augur put first over Asynth.
I TOTALLY TOTALLY AGREE
Augur is far too neglected
Can any other Augur fans show that improving Augur would make a lot of people really happy
I TOTALLY TOTALLY AGREE
Augur is far too neglected
Can any other Augur fans show that improving Augur would make a lot of people really happy
-
- KVRist
- 180 posts since 19 Apr, 2004 from Espoo, Finland
Simple solution: Find me someone who owns a real Prophet VS and has time and willingness to help.crackershaun wrote: Augur is far too neglected
Can any other Augur fans show that improving Augur would make a lot of people really happy
-
- KVRist
- 326 posts since 13 Sep, 2002 from Perth Western Australia
Who cares about trying to emulate a prophet VS. Just slap in more waveforms, features, routing abilities and lfo shapes and effects. Anything to make it sound closer to a big workstation pad machine. Then charge for it!Simple solution: Find me someone who owns a real Prophet VS and has time and willingness to help.
listen to my tunes here:
http://soundcloud.com/damien-chamizo
http://soundcloud.com/damien-chamizo
-
- KVRist
- 180 posts since 19 Apr, 2004 from Espoo, Finland
I do.AudioWhore wrote: Who cares about trying to emulate a prophet VS.
-
- KVRist
- 326 posts since 13 Sep, 2002 from Perth Western Australia
but you can do something better than a prophet!
listen to my tunes here:
http://soundcloud.com/damien-chamizo
http://soundcloud.com/damien-chamizo
-
- KVRist
- 193 posts since 18 Jul, 2001
I have to second that.ohm wrote:Great news Antti - keep us posted.ASynth 2 development has started
Will this new version have all the bells and whistles? If so it really has amazing potential.
What could be in ASynth 2?
As for me, I would like:
- mono, poly, legato modes etc.
- basic mod matrix
- crossmodulation
- sync
- different oscillator models (maybe those from the synths the filters were taken from?)
- improvements on the filter models (where they are due)
- general "rounder" bottom end sound
- more clipping / saturation / distortion options
cheers,
kybernaut
-
LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=47871
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1850 posts since 13 Nov, 2004
Allthough i agree with you on just about every one of those.. What do you mean by this..kybernaut wrote:ohm wrote:Great news Antti - keep us posted.ASynth 2 development has started
Will this new version have all the bells and whistles? If so it really has amazing potential.
As for me, I would like:
- general "rounder" bottom end sound
cheers,
kybernaut
The following statement is true.
The previous statement is false.
The previous statement is false.
-
- KVRist
- 193 posts since 18 Jul, 2001
Maybe it's just me, but I have the impression that the bottom end could be more present.
That doesn't mean that you can't make decent basses, it's just a matter of balancement, probably. Other moog emulations (creamware for instance) produce a more present and defined low end. Also, I think antti's taurus has more of that bottom end.
OTOH, Asynth was probably never meant as a vintage emu per se, so it should be fine anyway.
Either way, I'm looking forward to whatever antti is coming up with
That doesn't mean that you can't make decent basses, it's just a matter of balancement, probably. Other moog emulations (creamware for instance) produce a more present and defined low end. Also, I think antti's taurus has more of that bottom end.
OTOH, Asynth was probably never meant as a vintage emu per se, so it should be fine anyway.
Either way, I'm looking forward to whatever antti is coming up with
-
- KVRist
- 459 posts since 30 Jul, 2002 from netherlands
Another vote here for synths without effects. I never use chorus, reverb and delay from the synths themselves. To me it wouldn't make sense as I can add these things in my host and choose the effects to work with the other tracks.
I love A-synth for it's sound and simplicity. Any enhancements and new features in terms of oscillators, filter and midi-learn is welcomed.
I love A-synth for it's sound and simplicity. Any enhancements and new features in terms of oscillators, filter and midi-learn is welcomed.
-
- KVRian
- 1214 posts since 2 Jun, 2004 from Québec, CANADA
I agree, a good synth like Asynth is better without FX in it, we can use external FX...bengeorge wrote: it's not so much that we wouldn't want features, it's just a question of WHICH features, and we don't need another chorus, what the world needs now is love sweet filter and oscillator love.
-
- KVRist
- 333 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Brazil
My 0.02:
In the old days hardware synths had no FX at all. Development of digital components and circuitry made FX readily available at the same time that were deeply influencing the ways synths were being designed back then. Cost reduction and stability were achieved but in many cases at the expense of a poor sound quality. Cheap and often bad internal FX could (and were) used to disguise these basic flaws.
Then we old timers learned a trick: to evaluate the sound of any synth, disable all FX. If it sounded good when dry, then FX (probably external = better quality in those days) could be applied *if and when necessary* with great results. If it didn't sounded good, well... your mileage would vary a lot more.
Although we live in another century now, I still apply this rule to every VSTi I use - and I have quite few, freeware, donationware and expensiveware. IMO only a handful pass the "dry test", with ASynth and Augur among then - and this speaks volumes to me.
Summing up: I'm not against FX in synths, as long as the basic sonic quality is guaranteed. If this is the case, I would happilly trade internal FX for CPU optimization in any day. We have lots of good quality FX available anyway.
In the old days hardware synths had no FX at all. Development of digital components and circuitry made FX readily available at the same time that were deeply influencing the ways synths were being designed back then. Cost reduction and stability were achieved but in many cases at the expense of a poor sound quality. Cheap and often bad internal FX could (and were) used to disguise these basic flaws.
Then we old timers learned a trick: to evaluate the sound of any synth, disable all FX. If it sounded good when dry, then FX (probably external = better quality in those days) could be applied *if and when necessary* with great results. If it didn't sounded good, well... your mileage would vary a lot more.
Although we live in another century now, I still apply this rule to every VSTi I use - and I have quite few, freeware, donationware and expensiveware. IMO only a handful pass the "dry test", with ASynth and Augur among then - and this speaks volumes to me.
Summing up: I'm not against FX in synths, as long as the basic sonic quality is guaranteed. If this is the case, I would happilly trade internal FX for CPU optimization in any day. We have lots of good quality FX available anyway.
-
- KVRist
- 105 posts since 12 Mar, 2004 from UK
Some velocity control and a real legato mode would be my top request, additional oscillator waveforms and host-sync LFO(s - maybe another?) as a bonus.
But in the end I'll be happy with anything antti comes up with...
Cheers,
Stewart
But in the end I'll be happy with anything antti comes up with...
Cheers,
Stewart